I got Burnout Dominator for Xmas and its got a bunch of cool songs on it. My question is - do I now "own" those songs since I own the game that has those songs on it? I would assume so, but don't know. Obviously, I'd have to get the actual mp3 from somewhere else.

dadgamer

You never actually own the music itself, by buying the game you're allowed to listen to it whilst playing. It's a special license between the game developer and the musicians / record labels, nothing you licensed personally and therefore you do not own the music as if it were a normally purchased and downloaded iTunes mp3 for example.

It wouldn't make sense if you would own it, because that would mean that you would also own every soundtrack ever used in a DVD you own. Doesn't make sense because they often sell movie soundtracks in store separately. ;)

Are you insane man? WoW should NOT ever polute the PSP system... keep that carbage away at ALL COST!!!!!!!!!

WoW is clearly the most overrated piece of junk ever made... it's not a game, it's a freaknig chatbox. If anyone disagrees I challenge them to come up with a good reason why it's more than chatbox....

Sony Fanboy, Lol, hurt by those games?

World of Warcraft wasn't made by Sony dude.... nor does saying Halo is a bad game make him a Sony fanboy. People can disagree, just live with it. Personally I think both Halo and Halo3 were awesome games, but the problem is both got hyped A LOT!!

I generally disagree with hyped games when it just doesn't match the real quality and value of the game. In this respect Halo3 isn't as good as Microsoft wants you to believe, but it's still an awesome game well worthy of your money.

Could people stop saying next-gen about PC games?kyrieee

What do you mean with that? Don't think the PS3 or Xbox360 are all that next-gen... besides, next-gen is more a marketing buzz-word anyways... we haven't had a real revolution ever since Duke3D and Quake.

I only had HL2, so I paid 45 bucks for Ep1+2, TF2, and Portal. That's a damn good deal in my opinion. TF2 is worth 100 bucks by itself. This is one of the most generous offerings in gaming history imo.Staryoshi87

Are you crazy? Team Fortress 2 is by far not worth 100 bucks alone, in fact it's the worst rip-off of all games included. The amount of levels you get is quite insulting for it's developing time, even now it's still not all that balanced. Quite frankly it feels like a mod and the graphical style seems to be cleverly chosen to camoflage the outdated engine underneath. Can't quite say I'm impressed with TF2... the whole Orange Box got hyped so much for no good reason. Other games get crusified because they hardly innovate and HL2:Ep 2 can get away with it? Lol... funny ****

How was Far Cry even remotely a better game? To paraphrase Shacknews, Far Cry was like a rough draft in preparation for Crysis. You're whining about the aliens in Crysis but you didn't take issue with the Trigens in FC? Heh.Zeliard9

They made the same mistake again, how does that make Crysis a better game than Far Cry? It doesn't ... Sure it looks better, but basically it's not all that great when it comes to it's gameplay. It's far from a bad game for sure, but it got hyped so bad.... man, terribly hyped. Just like Orange Box some magazines gave Crysis a 10/10.. but that's just stupid. It's not a perfect game, in fact, not many people will be able to enjoy the full qualities of the game because they are mainly graphically... there are dozens of games that have better gameplay.

Pffff, no idea, but the very first games I played were the once you had to write from a book into your pc before you could play them... really insanely old games, some were like Pong, some totally different.

Pretty much played everything between then and now, but compared to those first games back then Doom 1 was extremely next -gen. :lol:

Enlighten us please. What exactly is so innovative about it? Introducing a new game engine alone is not necessarily innovation. It's how they use it which determines the real success of the game. Qixote

Ow come on, you're talking as if Crysis for example is very innovative and therefore has a higher score man. Both are about equal as innovative compared to their predeccesors actually... Crysis is more Far Cry-like than the dev team would admit, same goes for UT3. So my point being, why Crysis a higher score than UT3?

I think 8,5 is pretty honest and in my opinion quite correct, but if Gamespot would rate less inconsequent and more honest all games they would have rated Crysis a similar 8,5-ish score. Crysis ain't perfect at all and it even deserves some penalty points for performance issues and so on.. it seems UT3 didn't get hyped enough or got punished for it's delays or something, because concrete argumentation lacks a bit on this Gamespot verdict.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a PC port of Mass Effect. I fear it will follow the same path as Halo 2 and it's PC port, because Microsoft already considers it to be a very hot franchise and a system seller.

I don't know what kind of deal Bioware and Microsoft have, but I'm thinking Bioware would want to make a PC version for sure and release it as soon as possible, but since they aren't going to release a PC version at the same time, it makes somewhat sense to assume that Microsoft made that happen.

Gears of War is very fun in multiplayer, but the single player campaign could have been better I guess.. :p No offense to all the fans, but this game hasn't quite lived up to my personal expectations either. I would however still give the game a solid 80 as score for the things it dóes do correct.

There aren't that many games that I would blindly recommend to anyone just wanting a blast, but Gears of War can be recommended... the solid action is cool, eventhough at times it becomes repetitive.
It's actually better on PC than on Xbox360 by the way, so I don't quite understand how anti-xbox would have any impact on 'our' opinions...

As for the high score of GS, don't forget that Gamespot tends to look a lot at how good looking a game is, sometimes it s eems like half the games' score is actually based on looks instead of gameplay... There have been plenty of reviews lately that felt kinda off, but Gears of War wouldn't be the first one I would mention as being off. It's not like it's a terrible game or something.

FYI - even consoles have game demos nowadays.

Yeah, but it's not that relevant actually, the whole point of wanting a demo to be able to try before you buy remains the same no matter for which platform you're willing to maybe spend your money on a particular game.

If a developer provides a video, screenshots and a whole bunch of rants about features, the gameplay and so on, people should still be able to make a discision based upon that alone. There are probably about a million webpages that discuss games that you might consider buying .... and in fact you're on one right now. I'd say gather as much information about a game as possible before you buy. Downloading a demo can be one of the things you could do, but it's not like videos, screenshots and reviews don't say anything about a game experience.

I agree No demo, No buy im not gona play a game that I dont know if its gona run or have fun whit it

Is it really that hard to figure out if your PC isn't fast enough to run the newer games? Usually an old PC will always be slow when it comes to the latest next gen PC game. More recent games tend to demand a more powerful system. If you're wondering if a game still runs on your PC, it's probably time to earn some money and upgrade your system.

Lets take the Crysis demo for example. People shouldn't have the illusion that a PC that runs Far Cry on it's highest settings might still run Crysis on it's highest settings. It's just stupid.